RSS feeds

We recently ran another session of our Digital Challenge workshop game, used to help plan area-wide technology programmes. Last time it was Bristol - this time we were at the Manchester Digital Development Agency, which is one of the most experienced outfits in this field. Could our simple set of project cards, used to prompt discussion about how technology might benefit local people, bring anything to the techie toolkit?

Drew Mackie and I were delighted to find that they could, not least because of the enthusiastic way in which Dave Carter (with Gary Copitch in the picture) led his colleagues in stories about Jack, lone-parent with twin daughters, and the Malis, recently arrived from Somalia.

As before, we asked participants to work in groups and follow this sequence:

Describe an area - who lives there, and its characteristics

Invent a local character or characters

Choose from a set cards those projects you think will benefit them

Tell the story of how they use the technology ... while we throw in a few life crises and opportunities along the way.

This led to:

Jack has severe health problems and no computer skills, but with local support ends up in a self-help online health group, and running an E-bay trading setup with his daughters.
Mr Mali becomes a local councillor running online services for his constituents, while Mrs Mali uses the Internet extensively to further her career as a health care professional.

You can download the game kit we used, and the stories that resulted, from the links at the end.
The stories will help Manchester in developing storyboards for its Digital Challenge bid, and once that is out of the way I think that Manchester, Bristol and others may be interested in how these workshop techniques could be used to help local organisations and residents explore what digital development programmes will mean in practice.
We received a further boost when Gary Copitch, director of the Manchester Community Information Network, used the game himself for a workshop. He reported back:

We got six people from different Black and Minority Ethnic groups and I split them into 2 groups. I did a bit of a brief on the bid itself as people were interested in what it was. But it also gave a concept on what was possible within Manchester.
I then asked participants to come up with an identity. This they did with not too much trouble. One group developed a profile for a Somali women with 2 children who was an asylum seeker and the other group came up with a single Polish worker who was a migrant. They then filled in the year 1 and the impact of the technology on people's lives. I then gave them a number of scenarios. These included: where asylum status was approved, problem with a child in school, computer was stolen, the situation in Somali got worse, the Polish worker decided to bring his family over, there was a backlash against migrant workers in the press.
They all responded to this and changed their use of ICT. Overall the game worked really well in helping them define their problems and thinking about how ICT could be used in each case. What was interesting was that all the cards came into play. Once the infrastructure was in, and training given, both groups quickly went towards the social media type work and producing content. I would definitely use the game again.

Gary also gave us some valuable feedback on how to improve the mechanics of the game, including changes in the timeline, and different ways of handling scenarios.
From our experience so far it seems to me that the game offers particular benefits in a situation where the aim is to benefit excluded groups, and involve a wide range of people and organisations in planning and delivery of technologies that few people understand:

The format creates a level space in which the simple cards and instructions (we hope) make it easy for everyone to join in

Working in groups means those with more understanding of technology can explain to others.

The range of cards means it is easy to describe what may be planned "for real" in an area, while also enabling people to ask "why can't we do that too".

Moving into storytelling about local characters means the language and discussion is more likely to be in terms anyone can relate to - or challenge.

The game sessions are not intended to lead to any firm decisions, but rather to trigger conversations that can continue afterwards. That allows time for reflection and evolution.

I'm glad to see that Nick Booth continues to expand the coverage offered by Podnosh, the Birmingham-based channel offering - as I wrote earlier - online recordings of local conversations and activities. Nick reports in his blog:

David Cameron was in Birmingham again today - to give a Chamberlain Lecture on how he sees the relationship between government and communities.
In fact the leader of the opposition was in my own neighbourhood Balsall Heath, an area he admires for the extent to which citizens and volunteers have taken control of their own streets. The Grassroots Channel programme I am the grass now reported on how people here would prefer to volunteer to keep their police stations open rather than leave a vacuum in their streets.
The truth is that Balsall Heath's revival has been despite government, rather than because of it, and Mr Cameron belives there is much to learn from the people and the streets of this vibrant (yes it is fab) multi-culturural community. So where does that leave someone who wants to lead a Conservative government? Confused or clear about how government can get out of the way and let people make good choices?
You can find out here. Listen to his speech by clicking on this link, read the speech by clicking here and find out what the good people of Balsall Heath had to ask David Cameron by clicking here.

Podnosh offers a full recording of the lecture, and of the question and answer session afterwards. Cameron was talking about the need to rebuild social as well as economic well-being, and as the BBC reported wants to put the voluntary sector and local democracy "at the heart of a drive to restore local pride and give communities more control."
Podnosh works with the Birmingham Community Empowerment Network, and is a great (and relatively rare) example of how local community and voluntary organisations can develop their own voice online.
However a quick Google showed that (as usual) it is a mistake to believe "community" has one voice. Indymedia Birmingham has a highly sceptical report of Cameron's previous visit to Balsall Heath in January in the wake of tornado damage. They felt it was all a photo-op for Cameron to be filmed if not by national media at least his in-house team of publicists. They also take a pop at the local community organisation, the Balsall Heath Forum.

Whilst voluntary organisations like the Balsall Heath Forum have eulogised Cameron’s Tory Party’s newly found interest in the voluntary sector, it is also worth pointing out the role the Forum appointed for itself as a broker between local people and the City Council after the Tornado. Some have even gone as far as to say the Forum has effectively hijacked much of the initial grassroots interest in self- recovery for its own ends. Last year, the Forum hosted a series of events led by Dick Atkinson to solicit views from local people and traders about redeveloping the area in a focus group, ‘fantasy re-development’ scenario. Atkinson offered to collate and process ideas generated into a report to hand to the Council.
Atkinson’s report, however, differed substantially from the original ideas expressed by local people so much so that many people commented that his report reflected his own plans for the area and that of the Forum over local grassroots plans. A glaring omission in the report was a suggestion by local people to mobilise and demonstrate about the Council’s negligence over asbestos removal and other issues.

I don't know the ins and outs of the Balsall Heath community politics, but it seems wholly good for local democracy that different views of local and national affairs are emerging in media that are under local control. Every blogger - and indymedia channel - needs an audience, and there's nothing like a bit of argument to get people involved.

Lucy Hunter in the AOL press office takes my earlier chiding in good part - AOL community awards announced, but unlinked - and emails me to explain that all will eventually be revealed. I had queried why the awards press release didn't give any of the groups publicity by offering web links

The general press release about all 30 award recipients is intended to provide a taste of the winning projects. In addition, we issue press releases about each individual projects to their local media, which includes their Web site address and details of how they plan to use the £2,000 award.
All of the Internet initiatives are in the planning stage because the purpose of the awards is to help the charities and community groups realise these projects. For some, the award is used to start a project from scratch, for others, it enables them to expand an existing online initiative. Once the projects are up-and-running, we will contact them to develop a selection of detailed case studies, which will be posted on http://www.aol.co.uk/ so that people can get a better understanding of the projects we support through the awards.

I'm a long-time admirer of Steve Thompson, who has been a steelworker, writer of hit songs, and more recently inspiration and mentor behind many European-funded community media projects while based at the University of Teesside... with more here. The latest work he's developing in the village of Thorntree has the some lessons for the UK e-democracy programme.
Steve is working with Middlesbrough Voluntary Development Agency to combine the use of digital media with Planning for Real®. This is a technique for community engagement that involves people building a physical model of their neighbourhod as part of the process of exploring the issues that most concern them, and then deciding what to do.
What's new is that Steve is helping Thorntree residents add their images of the area, and their ideas and concerns through video clips. The TS3 site (it's a postcode) has a clickable picture of the base of the model, galleries for photos and videos, and several blogs.
The work has only just started, so click-throughs are limited, but to me what's important is that the project is giving a direct voice to residents using fairly basic tools and simple approaches - cleverly. I gather some of the video is done with webcams and a still camera. Where there's concern about directly showing a young person, Steve has asked them to draw a picture and talk us through that off camera. Residents are encouraged to do their own interviews - as you can see here (needs Realplayer). Steve is in the chair for once.
The approach developing in Thorntree will make it easy for people to add in other items, using their own cameras or phones. If a group wants to add to the system - which uses b2evolution - that's easy.
There are, of course, plenty of great community media examples around, some of them showcased by the Community Media Association - but I don't think there are many examples, if any, directly mixing model-building, interviews and other media. If there are, please let me know!
I think this approach could be important for e-democracy because, as I wrote recently, much of the work done so far in the UK is pretty top-down and institutional. A combination of "democracy" and "Internet" is not going to help bridge the gap of suspicion and mistrust between citizens and politicians unless the tools and approach used help start conversations around topics that interest people, in language they can understand. The TS3 approach could be a way forward.
You can see an interview I did with Steve a couple of months ago as part of some evaluation work for the Ourvideo project run by the National Computing Centre. As well as Steve, I interviewed other people who created videos for the project, and Diane Rogers from the Community Media Association.
Update: Steve emails to say that the b2evolution open source tool used on the project is being shaped by and added to with extra applications developed at the University by CMAD - the community media applications developers - "a small but very merry band". I can believe that - their online Community Challenge is particularly good fun.

AOL and Citizens Online have announced the winners of the 2005 AOL Innovation in the Community Awards. Unfortunately it is difficult to find out just what they and previous winners are actually doing. The press release says:

Innovative use of the Internet has secured AOL Innovation in the Community Awards of £2,000 for 30 forward-thinking charities and community groups across the UK. The winning projects demonstrate the positive impact the Web can have in areas such as: protecting the environment; developing new writing talent; the representation of ethnic minorities; encouraging young volunteers.

There are what appear to be some very interesting projects listed, and as the release says:

Many of this year’s 30 award recipients are planning to launch schemes providing peer support, with several using audio and webcam initiatives to enable people to share experiences and get support online.

But ... I was surprised that the release didn't give any links to winners' sites. More careful reading showed most are in the planning stage. That's fine, except it makes the line about "The winning projects demonstrate the positive impact the Web can have ... " a little premature.
I then checked in to the AOL site about the awards, and found links to lists of previous winners ... but those for 2003 and 2004 didn't have winners' sites individually linked either. Have they all ticked the 'not much publicity box'? There are glowing testimonials for the impact of the awards, but it would be interesting to see for ourselves. It would also help to show - as the awards intend - how far the Net is becoming part of the day-to-day life of small groups doing great work in their communities. After all, this isn't just about making AOL look good, is it?
Update: AOL promises to publish case studies

Community informatics is the academic term for using technology to help build local communities ... which is, of course, a Good Thing. However, as I've written before, while it may be jolly good for academics carving out a new field, I'm not sure it always develops in ways that help the locals.
I'm grateful therefore to David Brake for alerting me to an excellent article "Is Community Informatics good for communities" by Randy Stoecker in the Journal of Community Informatics in which he reflects very honestly on his own qualms as a teacher in the field and as someone involved in non-tech community development.
Randy, who is is Professor of Sociology and Research Associate in Urban Affairs at the University of Toledo, asks:

If the goal, ultimately, is to develop strong communities, does creating a field devoted only to the application of information technology in community settings really serve that goal? The fields of Social Work, Community Development, and Public Health have, for some time now, been focusing much more comprehensively on building strong communities and building up weak ones. Should we assume that information and communication technology is such a central part of that process that it deserves a place as a separate field?
Or, are our efforts better placed in bringing Community Informatics into those other fields—to make sure that the community goals drive the technology goals rather than vice versa? In a small rural community, for example, does the technology plan need to be integrated with the sustainable agricultural plan, and the local business development plan, and the family support system plan, and the regional medical care plan, and all the other plans that are needed to lift up disinvested rural communities? And does that make the technology plan just a member of the supporting cast under the rubric of broader fields of practice and study?

Home Office Minister Hazel Blears has confirmed funding of £16.5m for six ChangeUp national hubs of expertise over the next two years. These hubs will act as beacons of best practice and provide strategic leadership for the voluntary and community sector. This significant investment reflects the Government's commitment to a strong, independent and competent voluntary and community sector (VCS) and its desire to ensure that front line organisations have access to the support they need.

The Change Up hubs model has attracted some general criticism, and I reported last year on difficulties facing the technology hub in particular. This has now been resolved, with funding for the ICT hub consortium of £4 million, and also £1.2 million for the Net:gain partnership led by ruralnet|uk with partners Ufi, Foyer Federation, and Funding Matters. As I understand it, they have complementary approaches, with the the consortium offering a range of resources including support for circuit riders, and Net:gain working with local UK online technology centres. This will build on their previous DirectSupport work (declaration - I'm a partner in that).

One of the things that struck me at the Grassroots and Networks event that I reported earlier was how eloquent and enthusiastic Professor Stephen Coleman was in advocating the role of civic networks in renewing democracy. When he was with the Hansard Society his main focus was, I think, on the ways that Parliament, government and local government could use the Net to engage citizens.... and he feels these top-down institutions are doing reasonably well. Civic networks - whether local or reflecting interest groups - appear to be his current bottom-up passion.
The big engagement failure lies with political parties, which he predicted could be dead within 20 years if they carry on treating the members as voting-fodder.
Online activists have been pressing their case since the Freenets of the 1980s. It looks as if they are now in distinguished company.

Existing services such as eBay could provide a good blueprint for such services, says the think-tank.
Although the net is becoming part of local and central government, its potential has not yet been fully exploited to create an online "commons" for public debate.
In its report, Is Online Community A Policy Tool?, the IPPR also asks if ID cards could help create safer online communities.

Another piece of research on E-neighbourhoods hightlights some of the key issues circulating over the past few years:

To what extent does the global reach of the Internet and the World Wide Web render neighbourhood and neighbours irrelevant?
Alternatively does this technology foster a re-assertion of neighbourhood in terms of local ties and information or the provision of services and democratic accountability - in the way that is being argued for Virtual Cities?
Are there information rich and information poor neighbourhoods, and can information technology itself be used to bridge the gap and overcome social exclusion in a way assumed by the UK Government's 'Wired Communities' initiative?
Can IT provide a focus (via message boards etc) for neighbourhood activities? To what extent does the information available on the Internet affect the reputation of different neighbourhoods?
.... and so on towards "In sum this paper explores the articulations between neighbourhood functions and the various forms of information technology, the e-neighbourhood as "virtual" and "real".

I'm all agog, but unfortunately it turns out to be Yet Another Piece of Desk Research which doesn't deliver many answers, or - as far as I can see - any opportunity for those who may have them to join in.